Jump to content

Talk:Greek government-debt crisis/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

common sense analogy (for POV / LEAD)

Not to enlarge the POV / LEAD discussion too much, I add this section as everybody has been going a lot into details at the expense of the overview and the big points in the Greek debt crisis. An analogy for common sense:

If there was an article about a (fictional) famous "Manhattan Speeding Accident", I think it would be common sense that a first definition phrase would contain date, location, and speed, like: "November 1995 in Manhattan the 50-year-old Simon Smith went with his Lamborghini in a store when going 130 kmh, double the allowed speed, and fortunately no human injury happened." Even if there were multiple causes detected for the accident later on in a report, like the road being wet due to former rainy weather, mediocre road surface conditions as annual street maintenance had been postponed, a car-crowded city street because the planned new highway was still postponed, and so on, nobody with common sense would say: Let's not name the speed of the speed accident in the wikipdia definition because many experts are saying: With a dry, properly maintained street, not crowded by too many cars, one can drive a Lamborghini with the illegal speed of 130 kmh without necessarily running into a store.

The reader should have the right to know what this speed accident is about already in the definition phrase, wether the Lamborghini went like 80 kmh (exceeding the 60 kmh speed limit like almost everybody else has already done before), or if it went 130 kmh, something more exceptional; even though if - according to experts - with an illegal "speed" of 130 kmh you also could have avoided a "speed accident", if only the environment had been better (no rain), nobody would hide the speed in a WP "speed accident" article (WP authors are usually not afraid that the reader later on doesn't understand that with better environment conditions a 130 kmh does not necessarily lead to an accident.) (WP would also not empasize "legalism" concerning the legal speed limit being 60 kmh, even if they are special interest groups like Hells Angels who traditionally wouldn't care about speed limits as they have "club rules")

In a second sentence one could mention that between 1995 and 2000 there have been some speed accidents in New York since they were importing European Speed Cars, the New Yorkers were not used to drive, and mention that the detailed causes varied (they have have been speeding with drunk driving, with cell phone use, with bad tires, and so on)

In a third sentence one could summarize the main causes of the famous "Manhattan Speeding Accident", also reflecting that the driver was speeding for years with his Lamborghini, but the police didn't do their job to monitor speed in that region for 10 years.

The official New York police report, written by accident experts New York is mandating, will probably not mention/emphasite too much the speed of the accident because of accusations that New York didn't monitor speed in that region for 10 years against their rules.

So, also an EU report on the Greek debt crisis might not emphasize the 300 bn debt level too much, as the EU institutions with their big budgets were not able to discover that Greece had a debt overload since the beginning of the euro, and for 10 years. So EU reports may not have a "neutral understanding of the crisis" concerning causes that were with the EU institutions. But that is no reason WP should hide the debt level of state sliding in a debt crisis (even if the debt level were of minor importance to a debt crisis - what it is not)

--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

EC Economic Forecast reports are written by technical economic experts, working independently from the EU political bodies (i.e. the Eurogroup). Their reports are fully neutral and can be fully trusted. Your point is correct, that the Stability and Growth Pact did not work to enforce "fiscal sustainability" and "statistical accuracy" in the way it was supposed to from the start. This flaw, which was not because of ignorance/incompetence of the experts employed by the European Commission (but because too much wiggle room had been granted from the start to let politicians rather than independent bodies control the show), has not been hidden. On the contrary, this is why the SGP was reformed by the Sixpack in 2011. The European Commission published its first Fiscal Sustainability assessment report in 2006, and three years later the method to assess Fiscal Sustainability had been fully developed, leading to the revelation in Oct.2009 that Greece had huge long-term fiscal sustainability issues which only could be rectified either by drastically reforming its pension and health care system or adjusting its annual structural budget balance to reach a surplus of minimum +2.75% for the upcoming medium-term horizon. For WP (or the lead of our article), the blame game is irrelevant. One could indeed argue from both sides it was both lack of police (inefficient EU regulations) and irresponsible driving of the car (ELSTAT as a department under direct leadership of the Greek Minister of Finance doing window-dressing of its statistical figures, so that he could continue running public deficits at unsustainable dangerous levels without getting caught by the police - until the moment he crashed). Fortunately both flaws were fixed after the accident, which also mean its safe even to let Varoufakis drive a new expensive Lamborghini - which the Troika just bought him - because the new modern one has implemented automatic speed control into its electronic computer. Moreover, if Varoufakis refuse to accept the expensive "Lamborghini with speed control" gift from the Troika, then no problem, as it will only mean he then prefers to walk all his travel distances instead by foot (a Grexit), which will not harm the rest of Europe but only himself and Greece. By the end of the day, the choice is up for Varoufakis and the Greek people to decide how to transport themselve into the future. Personally, I recommend choosing the "Lamborgini with speed control".
All this said, the reason why the first paragraph of the lead does not explicitly mention the debt and deficit in the first year of the Greek accident, is that the size of such figures do not explain why the car crashed - or to what severity it crashed. As I replied earlier in our debate, €300bn debt (130% of GDP) along with a 15% deficit would be something the private credit market gladly would have continued to finance for two more years in 2010, if this has just had happened in the context of "no structural weaknesses of the Greek economy" and the government operating a "structural balance surplus" (which is possible while operating a 15% budget balance deficit - then solely originating from adverse oneoff measures and adverse impact of the recession and not being related to unhealthy public deficit spending). In comparison Japan has a + 200% debt-to-GDP ratio without having a government-debt crisis, so looking blindly at this figure alone, does not define when you are in the midst of a crisis. If Greece can manage to operate a positive structural balance for a sustained number of years (while ensuring long-term sustainability by reforming its pension and health care system), then private investors will gladly return and finance its refinancing of debt, even if the debt-to-GDP level is up at 200%, because such scenario will equal a guarantee the debt-to-GDP ratio is on a solid declining path and not dangerously running upward at an increasingly speed.
In this context, one can even claim, that IMF is kind of obsessed when demanding the Eurogroup needs to offer Greece debt-relief to the extend of its debt-to-GDP reaches max.124% in 2020. But why is it 124% in 2020 and not 124% in 2030, and why do they consider a 150% ratio declining steadily 5% per year because of operating a modest structural budget balance at +1% not to be sufficient? Reason for this obsessive IMF demand of 124% in 2020, is that the "debt sustainability" for a debitor state receiving its loans need to be "guaranteed by a strong likelihood". The truth however is, that Greece will be regarded to have fully regained its "Fiscal sustainability" as soon as they continue operating structural budget surpluses and implement the needed structural reforms. This is btw also why the door to the private lending market already briefly reopened again for Greece during Q2-Q3 2014, before Syriza spoiled all progress by flushing out the Greek progress through insisting Greece should not take its needed medicine - preferring a harmful period of political caos and objecting to medical care. Danish Expert (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Here is a misundersanding. You wrote "the size of such figures do not explain why the car crashed"; I agree to that but my point is another one. In the first sentence for WP "accident" articles WP should define/describe the accident that the article is about (country, time, issue) and not already try to explain the reasons for the accident especially if there are many reasons.
  • telling the speed of a car in the first sentence of a "speed accident" article is defining/decribing what speed accident the speed accident is about and not saying this speed necessarily produces accidents; it is also not implying that even higher speeds are not possibe without having an accident
  • telling that 1 box of beer has been consumed in the first sentence of a "beer accident" article is defining/decribing what this specific beer accident article is about and not saying this consuming of 1 box of beer necessarily produces an accident; it is also not implying that even higher beer consum levels are not possibe without having an accident
  • telling that 3 bullets have been shot in the first sentence of a "shooting accident" article is defining/decribing what the specific shooting accident article is about and not saying this firing of 3 bullets necessarily produces an accident; it is also not implying that firing 6 bullets is not possibe without having an accident
  • telling that 300bn was the debt level in the first sentence of a "debt crisis" article is defining/decribing what specific debt crisis the article is about and not saying that having 300bn debt necessarily produces a debt crisis; it is also not implying that a higher debt level (Japan) is not possibe without having a debt crisis
--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Up to now, the debt level of Greece (sliding into a debt crisis) is not mentioned in the lead. Do we want to cut this information out for the reader of the lead?--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
If there is no contradiction I see this as a 'yes'.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This is WP:SYNTH

Please do not restore this WP:SYNTH edit. It is synthesis from a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and uses the conjunction "however" to add the SYNTH to tha article although no source uses the conjunction. Thank you for your understanding. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no "understanding", the paragraph (below) is not conjecture, it's sourced from solid factual information. I'm sure I can find multiple other sources that show the same if you'd rather that however the facts still stand as facts.
  • ", however this is countered by Greek workers being some of the least productive, with only three un-modernised Eastern Block nations being less productive.[1]."
MattUK (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
That's a remarkably broad definiton of WP:SYNTH; now we're forbidden to add a "however..." pointing out what a reliable source says, if it disagrees with other text that you like? bobrayner (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Please understand that you are using a primary source to push your SYNTH into the article. Unless you find a secondary, reliable source which makes the explicit connection do not attempt to edit-war your POV SYNTH into the article. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, here we go:
MattUK (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, here we go.
  • Business Insider piece is just about hours worked and productivity; tells you zilch about "laziness".
  • Guardian: just tells you about hours worked; what's your point?
  • Atlantic piece: comically, it totally undermines your position: "Germans—armed with large and scaled-up firms, low corruption, state-of-the-art technologies, financing opportunities, and smart global supply chain management—get a lot more product out of each hour worked. So does the U.S. With the wealth that our productivity buys, Americans and Germans can afford things like leisure, or savings, or (in the case of the U.S.) lots and lots of stuff. Matt Yglesias put it simply, broadly, and truly: 'Countries aren't rich because their people work hard. When people are poor, that's when they work hard.'"
  • BBC Magazine: again, totally contradicts you.
This is a big waste of my time. Monumental question begging. German source on Greek "laziness". --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with YeOldeGentleman. None of these sources provided by MattUK supports the SYNTH phraseology that is being attempted to be inserted into the article. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, Dr.K. The word "countered" is totally erroneous. The problem seems to be—not that my pointing it out seems to have made the slightest bit of difference—that some editors don't understand elementary economic concepts such as productivity). The bit about working long hours is analysis and conclusion from economist Dean Baker; the "countering" source is a bare link to productivity data. There is a reason original research is not allowed.
As I have already tried to point out, productivity is not a function of one variable (worker effort), so trying to put it up there as countering reliably-sourced evidence that Greeks are not "lazy" (which is a classic racist slur, you read it all the time in colonial histories: "lazy natives, if only they were like us, blah blah blah…") is, at best, embarrassing and ludicrous.
So my question is this: if you don't or won't grasp even elementary concepts like productivity, why are you trying to edit an article on an economic crisis? --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that productivity are solid quantifiers of EFFORT, but neither is "hours in work", I'm arguing for the inclusion of multiple metrics to help represent the real situation properly rather than one cherry-picked statistic. MattUK (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

YeOldeGentleman, you are protecting the two phrases:
"The need of (lazy) Greeks to work harder". Actually Greeks have the highest average annual hours actually worked per worker in the European Union and one of the highest such number among OECD countries.
and in the discussion you try to make the impression to have embraced the "concept of productivity and laziness"? Did you see that these two sentences were a strong case of WP:SYNTH ?
Did you ever try to understand why so many brand new production facilities in Greece (that have been put up with EU subsidies) have been shut down and written off, i.e. why productivity in Greek plants has been so low that it was cheaper to throw the plant away than trying to improve the productivity? The story was always the same: usually product quality was problematic and reliability (schedules/deadlines/volumes) was missing. Instead of reacting and improving the work set-up, worker's councils and unions forced salary increases and made clear to their employers that rigid Greek labor laws protected them. As a consequence many Greek plants of international companies were closed down. The two sentences you are protecting don't make any sense because working hours were not Greece's problems but the willingness of the employees to adapt to market demand (or to refuse adaption until employees in other countries have taken over the whole volume). Some call that a lack of motivation, or lack of flexiblity, some call it ignorance, some call it laziness, I don't want to go in that discussion. But MattUK wasn't that wrong...
--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Your original research is very interesting, however, please note that wikipedia relies on reliable sources, not individual user's opinions, experiences, and unpublished research. Athenean (talk) 05:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
@Athenean: You are missing the point of my first statements, that "we have strong case of WP:SYNTH". So I explain it more detailed: It is easily visible that there are two sentences combined that use totally different sources. There is a cheap attempt to make a connection by using the weasel word "Actually" - how cutting-edge. And if you look into the second sentence you will see that the sentence is not even backed by its sources, leading additionally to WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. The tabloid "Spiegel" (does WP need those tabloids because no serious sourcs available?) is only making positive statements about Greeks "living beyond their means" and Greeks conducting "tax evasion". Concerning "laziness" it says it would be "difficult to make direct comparisons" to other EU states. In the other source, even the Greek policy advising insitute ELIAMEP (which would probably have a hard time saying that their own population is "lazy"), is only saying: "The criticism that Greeks are 'lazy and unskilled' is not supported by the data." (because working time data don't say anything about how "lazy" one is in scheduled working hours, it doesn't even say if you work or are on strike or are just in the company because of rigid labour laws, but nothing to do.) The other two sources are only stats, anyway not saying that there is "no laziness".
You are also missing the point of my other statements I explained to YeOldeGentleman. It was about what the real problem of the Greek working class in relation to the Greek debt crisis is. No formal sources needed, it was just to give YeOldeGentleman an intellectual support, may be not wanted, as he is blocking improvement of the article, too.
The whole WP article seems only to blocked by people who say to have allegedly "Greek interests" and want to have "Greek interests etc. a prominence" as Thanatos666 puts it. The funny thing is, Thanatos666 and friends are not at all working in Greek's interest by having a WP:CONFLICT and trying to keep the article with many low quality sections and POV. My opinion: skewing reality (also in a WP article) is more a contribution to prolonging a debt crisis, as all other attempts to deny reality.
--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, Athenean, but my changes were not "unexplained". I gave clear, concise reasons in my edit summary. Thank you. The word "actually" that is being used as a rebuttal to every argument about the reason Greeks have a debt crisis is a prime example of WP:EDITORIALIZING, which is not allowed. "notably, interestingly, it should be noted, essentially, actually, clearly, without a doubt, of course, fortunately, happily, unfortunately, tragically, untimely" are all words to watch. RoadWarrior445 (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that these conjunctions are SYNTH, but so is this

However Greek public debt as a percentage of GDP and of government is the highest in the EU and Eurozone and Greece has received over EURO 400 billion in subsidies from the EU during it's membership.

which was added after the bullet refuting that "Greeks were living beyond their means". For starters, the EU subsidies have nothing to do with the subject of Greeks living beyond their means. Second, the fact that the debt to GDP ratio is currently the highest in Europe is misleading without added context regarding other countries which have similar ratios yet noone accuses them of living beyond their means. It is also anachronistic to mention the current debt to GDP ratio as a metric of Greeks living beyond their means because the ratio skyrocketed as a result of the depression-causing austerity not because Greeks are living beyond their means during the austerity-caused depression. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
@DrK: I agree that the EUR 400 bn should be presented in a context that cannot be misunderstood, and also describe effects more differentiated. Your arguments (and plain reverting) are not really helpful for the article, your arguments being really wrong:
  • If a highly corrupt system/country gets EUR 400 bn subsidies for investments, this system/country will try to disobey the conditions attached to the subsidies, more clearly speaking: consume as much as possible of the 400 bn instead of investing the funds (like trying to create well paid positions and get family and friends in those positions even though they can not add value; like to buy (troubled) assets with these funds at (overvalued) prices; like selecting projects for the funds that are not productive (but yield high salaries); and so on). And exactly that happened to Greece. Consequence 1 is a unnaturally elevated Greek consume level. Consequence 2 is an unnaturally inflated Greek GDP (with many unsustainable projects) that will collapse as soon as the misallocated "investments" have to be written off. (ceteris paribus)
  • If other countries don't have the same corruption level than Greece, they can have higher debt/GDP ratios without getting into trouble because their GDP is much more sustainable (ceteris paribus)
  • Austerity - here meaning not getting as much deficit financing and cutting back former government expense increases - is a natural consequence if a state has misallocated/consumed a lot of investments for a long time because the state has to take the double hit - missing the planned return of those "investments", and not having anymore the inflated higher consume levels (after corruption stopped) that the population has got used to. (ceteris paribus)
This misallocation happened in Greece. The consequences happened, too. What I don't understand is that I (and not you) have to explain these casual relations about Greece as you perceive the other editors here to be starters (implying you are the professional)
--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Aside from your wall of text which per WP:TLDR I did not read, please understand the concept of WP:SYNTH: If a reliable source did not make the connection starting with "however" and quoted above then quite simply you cannot put it in the article. So do not accuse me of unhelpful reverting when I clean up the article from SYNTH. That's a commendable action not an action to be criticised. As far as your other personal attack as you perceive the other editors here to be starters (implying you are the professional), that kind of accusation is strictly in your imagination. I don't know what to tell you first: Please do not imagine things, or don't put words in my mouth. In either case please drop the WP:STICK. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dr K you seem to be opposing almost any changes, remember WP:PUSH which seems to be happening from a side opposed to any changes to this article regardless of if they are cited, correcting blatant POV or removal of information unfavourable to their viewpoint. There are limits to synth WP:NOTSYNTH and you can't dismiss everything on that basis. You also can't dismiss something as WP:TLDR because you can't be bothered to read it, three paragraphs based around bullet points can in no way be described as a wall of text. MattUK (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@MattUK: Until you get a grasp of what SYNTH is don't attack me with nonsense like PUSH etc. Also don't try to defend the walls of SYNTH-supporting text of those you agree with. You are free to open a dispute resolution or go to WP:ORN but leave your personal attack nonsense out of this discussion. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
@DrK: Suddenly you decide that a 400 bn Euro topic is not so important? And pretend not even to read answers after you were first very interested in deleting the topic (instead of improving it) and then starting a discussion (with wrong arguments). You are just stealing time with all your tactical moves, appearing to miss any honesty. --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Leave you silly personal attacks out of this talkpage. After your walls of text trying to justify your SYNTH didn't succeed to get your POV into the article you have resumed your personal attack nonsense. These are either dishonest tactics on your part or simple trolling. Don't waste my time if you don't understand what SYNTH is. But I will repeat to you once more in the outside chance you will finally get it: You don't need to write WP:TLDR walls of text to support your SYNTH POV. Just find a reliable source which makes the connections you are making by creating your SYNTH-supporting walls of text. But obviously you haven't found that source and that's why you keep your attacks coming. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
You are trying to keep the 400bn subsidy subject out of this debt crisis article with wrong claims. I just gave clear arguments as a reply why your claims are wrong, and why it is wrong to keep this topic out of the article. There is no SYNTH violation in a talk page, especially not when making wrong claims transparent. Why are you not answering to the arguments as they are in total contradiction to your claims? Does it mean you agree? (and yes, it needs to be sourced when put in the article, no need to fill discussions with those no-brainers.)--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Should I add the 400 bn subsidy topic to the article, citing sources confirming the link to the debt crisis?--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No contradiciton, so I see it as a 'yes'. Anybody who wants to start?--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 10:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Content

@Volunteer Marek: Hi. I noticed you removed a lot of content on the page in a series of edits, especially to the sections concerning "Unsustainable and accelerating debt-to-GDP ratios" and "commentary". Although I agree these sections were too long, I do not believe a complete blanking of these sections is justifiable. There was lots of content in these sections that explained the lead up to the current crisis in Greece. Also, your edit comments of "basically junk", "cluster fuck", and "bad writing" as reasons for your blanking do not really serve to explain why these sections should be removed. Note that I am not against the shortening of these sections, but I feel that a complete blanking is unreasonable as some information from these sections must be saved.

Posting here so other editors can discuss. Thanks. KevinLiu (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I posted this probably too far up the Talk page:
Suggestions for shortening article:
Criticism of Germany's role is 11 pages on my browser!
Causes is 10 pages long and extremely repetitive. WykiP (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@WykiP: I completely agree that the sections need to be trimmed for readability purposes. I just don't think sections should be completely removed and so we should try to recover some material from the two sections Volunteer Marek deleted. Thanks. KevinLiu (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Look at the article. It really is a complete mess. It's really embarrassing for Wikipedia to have such a crappy article on such an important topic. Clean up has to start somewhere. The sections I removed were particularly crappy and non-encyclopedic. The text is there in the article history. If you want to look through it and identify some material which could potentially be useful please be my guest. However, keep in mind that one of the problems here is that what makes the article so bad is that people are trying to cram random tidbits, commentary, political views, statements by everyone and their mother's dog and other stuff which simply does not belong in an encyclopedia article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: I'm sure no one is purposely trying to cram random statements (especially by their mother's dog) into the article. It is just that everyone has a different view on what details are important and unimportant. This will hopefully all get flushed out once the crisis settles down. I am just politely asking that in the future it would be better to incite a discussion in the talk page of an article rather than just blanking over 120k bytes of the article with not very meaningful edit comments. It is harder to recover blanked text from the history than if a discussion happened in the talk page first and only unneeded text was removed. KevinLiu (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek does not have to explain himself, KevinLiu—not to you, not to anyone. Why? Simple: he is a towering intellect whose genius and erudition will be admired centuries hence. I honestly do not think Wikipedia is worthy of the man, and so stop bothering him. Just be glad he condescends to edit here. Content yourself with marvelling at his brilliance. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Please, by all means, keep it up with the trolling and the personal attacks. I won't exactly be saddened if (or more precisely, when) you get banned for your troubles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Some of the material that Marek removed was wholly unsourced, and other text may well should have remained. I don't agree with many of the removals (specifically, the social impact of the crisis on Greek living conditions is important and this was well sourced). However, Marek said that you were free to re-add content as you wished, and you should, making an effort to improve sourcing, concision, and relevance where you can. As Marek says, personal attacks are not justified. -Darouet (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"Unsustainable and accelerating debt-to-GDP ratios" section

The section about debt-to-GDP ratios had been tagged as inadequately referenced and then completely removed. If reinsertion is favoured, then how do we improve the section? George Ho (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

"Criticism of Germany's role" subsection

The subsection and its sub-subsections about Germany's role in Greek debt crisis, part of "Commentary" section, had been tagged as more partisan and undue. Then the whole "Commentary" section was completely removed. If reinsertion is favoured, then how do we improve the section? George Ho (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

"Analysis of the Greek rescue" subsection

The subsection about Greek rescue analysis, part of "Commentary" section, had been tagged as more partisan. The whole "Commentary" section was then removed completely. If reinsertion is favoured, then how do we improve the section? George Ho (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment (summoned by bot): I don't think that complete removal of this section was the best approach here. The issue, as I understand it, is really about whether the content of that section is WP:UNDUE, as the POV was appropriately attributed. Two ways of reducing the undue weight on one POV (or several related POVs) would be to condense the material or to balance it with coverage of other POVs on the topic. In this case, I suggest that pursuing both strategies together would be a good plan. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

>100 pages, but still main points missing?

This articles has more than 100 pages on a PC (good work; as to my opinion we should keep most of it). Still one has problems finding all the main causes and measures of this debt crisis. Instead of increasing the article to 150 pages in the short-term, why don't we have 1 page with the main points (that have been extensively been covered in the press) comprehensively in the introduction:


MAIN CAUSES

-- joining the Euro without sufficient financial convergence and competitiveness

(tweaking the statistics, window dressing, not adhering to the Maastricht treaty criteria)

-- further deterioration of competitiveness through

  • above-average wage and costs increases after joining the Euro
  • strong increase of public expenses after joining the Euro
  • continuation of above-average tax evasion led to public income problems
  • poor (fin.sector) supervision led to ballooning financing of unhealthy projects
  • above-average corruption led to mismanagement/misallocation of the ballooning financing

-- supported by

  • using derivatives/low transparency to hide ever-increasing debts and problems
  • not managing hidden problems (expenses, debt, corruption, tax evasion) until 2010
  • low interest and low collateral lending conditions in capital markets


MAIN COUNTERMEASURES

  • fight against corruption (not really implemented; estimation of fin.effects?)
  • fight against tax evasion (not really implemented; estim. of fin.effects?)
  • raise funds through privatizations (not really implemented; estim. of fin.effects?)
  • save money through cutbacks on former wage/expense increases (partly impl.; fin.eff.?)
  • structural reforms (unlocking protected markets etc.) (partly implemented)
  • debt-cut from intl. creditors (100 bil. Euros)(direct cuts/interest rate supports)
  • bail-out money from intl. institutions/states (>200 bil. Euros) (EU/IMF/ECB)

Thank you for considering.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the general thrust of your argument; this article has reams of technical detail, but it's not serving readers until somebody with an average attention span can read about the topic and get a general view. Even the lede fails to summarise, right now (the lede on its own would be in the top 0.1% of articles by length). bobrayner (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the length of the lead is appropriate, when considering it summarizes a complicated crisis spanning six years in duration. Also think its appropriate (being requested by most readers), that the lead as it stands now, focus to explain a short summary of the causes, followed by a summary of how the crisis evolved, and ending with a short summary of its present state. As for the proposal by Economics for us to let the article feature a summary of "main causes" and "main countermeasures", I agree on that. However, it can as I see it, be done in three different ways:
  1. Spin-off the content of the main chapters of the article into sub-articles, and then rewrite the chapters into summaries of the sub-articles.
  2. Begin the "Causes" chapter and "Countermeasures" chapter with a short summary section, before letting them go into further details below.
  3. Expand the current "Overview" chapter, so that it not only provide an "Overview of Evolution", but also provide an "Overview of Causes" and "Overview of countermeasures".
Not sure which of the above three structures would be best to implement. In any case, writing the summary text about "Overview of Causes" and "Overview of Countermeasures", should in my point of view only be done after a careful read of the Troika's latest Review report (last edition was published in April 2014, and we currently await the fifth by the end of June 2015), as this document is the best scientific source to decide "the perceived causes Greece initially faced and needed to combat" and takes stock "what has been done so far to what extend - and what remains to be done". Danish Expert (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll have to de facto disagree and oppose such a drastic change cause while such a let's say bullet list and a more spartan form or look would prima facie be very welcome (lakonizein esti philosophein), deciding for example and among other things what and where to put in said list would be, to say the least, very hard; for example some - need I say which? - of the countermeasures you've listed belong according to some people, including editors (need I say who?), to the causes and not to the countermeasures or at least both to the causes and countermeasures; so having them being presented in such a definitive way as a countermeasure, i.e. as a solution, would be very misleading or one-sided.
PS
  • 1. I will partially agree with Danish Expert one this. This is a complex, multifaceted, long and ongoing event, issue. It's hard to keep it short and simple without sacrificing essence. I had once for example shortened the lead; well, it somehow - what kind of sorcery is this? - simply grew back... :)
  • 2. I will also have to remind you that this article is already a child split from among other things the European sovereign debt crisis article and also that it already has its own split-off children articles.
  • 3. Put in another way:
    OK, if you or some other editor(s) have so much free time to waste (need I add that it seems like such a change would need a gargantuan effort? unless that is, you'll simply and mercilessly chop off parts and refs), let him/her/them try doing at your/his/her/their sandboxes everything that has been proposed and then let's have him/her/them present to us the result; we'll then decide whether such a change would be acceptable, warranted.
Thanatos|talk|contributions
I started summarising and trying to make things clearer, but Danish Expert steamrollered over my changes. I would happily finish the job if there were some assurance that the summary would not be submerged in another 100k of new text. It's not impossible to summarise; there are plenty of reliable sources that do so. (In fact, it's very hard to find sources that are longer than our article). bobrayner (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I would applaud that the lead be shortened. It has too many paragraphs WP:LEADLENGTH and on top of it the paragraphs are very long. In my view the lead section should be shortened by at least half. Summarizing complex issues into short accessible texts is in my view evidence of good editing, leaving it long and technical is lazy or incompetent writing.
For example I think the first paragraph can be shortened with only losing details (that should be picked up in the main text) to:The Greek government-debt crisis (also known as the Greek Depression[3][4][5]) is part of the ongoing European debt crisis. It is believed to have been caused locally in Greece by a combination of structural weaknesses of the Greek economy and pre-existing high structural deficits and debt-to-GDP levels. In late 2009 reported strong increase in government debt levels along with continued existence of high structural deficits.[6][7][8] led to fears of a sovereign debt crisis among investors. This resulted in wide bond yield spreads and high cost of risk insurance on Greek credit default swaps compared to the other countries in the Eurozone.[9][10] Arnoutf (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It is believed to have been caused locally in Greece... This statement completely ignores the faults and effects of the imposed austerity and the widespread criticism of many reliable sources against the austerity imposed on the Greek economy. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Rhetoric about "imposed austerity" might play well to Greek voters, but would fail WP:NPOV. The Greek government overspent and undertaxed; it maxed out the credit cards; consequently, it faced very high borrowing costs on the open market; so it sought out soft funding elsewhere, which came with a condition attached - that Greek government actually make some reforms that would improve its position in the longer term.
Outsiders didn't force Greece to run years of budget defecits or dysfunctional fiscal policy. Outsiders didn't even force Greece to take these particular bailout terms. bobrayner (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Rhetoric about "imposed austerity" might play well to Greek voters,... Please dispense with nonsense comments. This is an encyclopedia and not your personal blog. There are a myriad of specialist reliable sources which analyse technically the effects of austerity and its detrimental effects on the Greek economy. That you seem not to accept or understand that is your problem and the problem of your POV. Your problem becomes even more pronounced when you start your clueless rhetoric about how this plays to Greek voters. This is as bad as it gets in terms of lack of NPOV from an editor. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course I am open to alternatives. However note that the current text "believed to have been started locally in Greece by a combination of structural weaknesses of the Greek economy along with a decade long pre-existence of overly high structural deficits and debt-to-GDP levels on public accounts"is very similar to my proposed shortening So please don't blame it on the proposed shortened version. But do we at least agree the summary and the article need to be drastically shortened? Arnoutf (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@all: Is this article not about the Greek „ government debt crisis“?

One can understand the emotional frustration about the fact that various Greek population groups are suffering now, and everyone knows how the political LEFT STORY goes: it is unfair that international investors and foreign states stopped to (unconditionally) finance the increased Greek spending level and deficits (as they also financed it in the preceding years). Those international parties now even “force” austerity on the Greeks (by not continuing to pay for the Greek deficits) even though the Greek population has voted against it (which implies that non-Greeks should continue paying for the deficits). There are poll results in Greece that 80% of the population support an austerity stop (but foreign voters have not been asked in those polls even though their countries should foot the bill with their tax money).

One can also understand the emotional frustration of the tax payers in the other countries, and everyone knows how the political LIBERAL/RIGHT STORY goes: the Greeks themselves elected those governments that spent much more than they earned and only the Greek themselves consumed it (and foreigners have nothing to do with their decisions, the responsibility principle must not be diluted). The Greek themselves voted in free elections not to pay taxes like others do and not to finish corruption and favoritism like others did and they don’t work so hard as others do (even though not all groups outside Greece work hard). The Greeks even drew 100+ bn Euros from their bank accounts only in the last months alone instead of having learned to pay taxes and helping themselves (neglecting that the Greeks were afraid of sudden capital controls or a currency change). Also, the Greeks cheated their way into and through the Euro, why should the deceived foreign populations now be responsible (neglecting that Greeks were consulted by international investment banks)?

Or one can stick to the major FACTS of this „Greek government debt crisis“ omitting less important details (it is a 100s of bn Euro crisis!) and omitting the 100s of possible and conflicting emotional/political/moral views in the intro. They can be covered in special passages in the depth of the 100+ pages or even in sub articles.

That is all I tried to propose when distilling the most important facts concerning a 100s of bn Euro crisis, as it is all covered in the press. Distilling for an introduction should mean leaving details and pure political sources out, and then being able to summarize the important and undeniable stuff (or should we leave the 100+ pages as is even though a elementary school teacher would ask why nobody is able to make a simple summary)?

--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Simply put, one cannot "stick to the major facts" when many people disagree over what's major and what's a fact... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 14:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I read your comments, thank you. Still, there will never be a summary if we are not specific. So, for a one page short summary of main causes and measures, which of the proposed bullets would you kick out, change, or add?--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
In short, all of them; explaining in a substantiated manner why or what exactly I mean by this would need an essay-sized reply. So no thanx. As I've said, as far as I am concerned (my objection could obviously be outvoted, bypassed) you're free to do all the work on your sandbox and then have it presented for comments, a vote etc..
PS Just to be clear, my objection to such a drastic change does not mean that I'm really satisfied with the present state of the article. Hell, imo even the title thereof is wrong; I'd prefer something much more poetic, something like Greek post 2007 external debt crisis within the confines of the madhouse named EU/€Ζ... ;-)
Thanatos|talk|contributions 15:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear, imho, a summary of a "government debt crisis" should not be blocked or enlarged because there are different political/moral/emotional views on what measures are good or bad or should be enforced or stopped; or if some measures might lead to further problems what you indicated if I can interpret your comments correctly. But a good summary should contain the main points that caused the debt crisis and the main measures that have been taken so far for more than five years to solve it (which are facts, even if measures don't work). Reading the current article summary, and the answers to my proposal, it becomes clear that over the five years of the crisis the authors have lost their energy to focus. If you allow me to say: my children would not even pass elementary school exams with those summarizing approaches or skills.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Even the nature of the crisis is not commonly agreed upon for god's sake!!! Is it a government debt crisis, an external debt crisis, a balance of payments crisis, ...? And no, it's not a commonly accepted fact that for 5 years or so parties or at least all of them are really trying to solve the crisis unless one goes by a very loose definition of the word "solution"; it could be easily argued -and indeed it has already been argued, manyatime - that some of the major players or actors in the game have just been kicking the can down the road firewalling themselves in the meantime against the actual crisis, making it thus even harder for some other here-to-remain-nameless actors of this drama. Or should I say farce?
This is a long and complex, an extremely power and value laden issue within an extremely power and value laden field or rather array of fields of inquiry and of reality and you are going ex cathedra ultra-positivist and supposedly power and value neutral on me?!?!?
I've said what I've said. I'll stop here, because as I've said elsewhere this is not a forum, by also repeating to you and to others: outvote me if you will or if you must but I simply have to object due to reasons already stated. Thanatos|talk|contributions 17:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I fully agree with EconomicsEconomics here. I would fail any of my students writing such an article / article summary because it does not take into account the reader. Arnoutf (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I fully agree with Thanatos666 here. This is a very complex sociopoliticoeconomic issue on a Global scale which has no clear answers. Any attempt to simplify it is an attempt at pushing one's favourite POV and it is unacceptable and unencyclopedic. Remember we are supposed to be descriptive not prescriptive in writing about this crisis. Trying to diagnose it is like trying to push our POV into the reader's mind. We should only describe what happened and let the readers make up their minds instead of trying to blame one side of this global, multifaceted economic phenomenon which happens to have a Greek component to it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Shortening is not the same as simplifying or putting in a specific POV. Stating that trying to shorten it, without willing to seriously consider the suggestions to do so is at best a sign of laziness and incompetence (if not outright claims to ownership of the article. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia aimed at readers with no in depth knowledge on the topic; and not a comprehensive report of a topic. The current length (about 35,000 words - about the size of a small novel) is prohibitive for novice readers and for that reason alone this article in its current state is a very poor article. And THAT has nothing to do with POV pushing but with a basic level of respect for our readers. Arnoutf (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Quoting competence and ownership to me is a failure on your part regarding keeping this discussion civil and refraining from personal attacks per NPA. It also indicates an inability or unwillingness to understand what I wrote in my previous reply. Also please don't capitalise words. Being loud does not help your case and makes you look out of control. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Thanatos @DrK: you both seem to agree that the current article "summary" does a bad job summarizing at all; you both say it is too complex for you to write a good or at least mediocre summary; you both cannot specify if you would add/change/subtract specific points from a proposed clear-cut bullet summary I presented as a preparation; you both say you prefer to block other authors to write a clear cut summary ("accusing" them of POV without specifically saying what you specifically identified as POV). After 5 years of a very bad summary in this article, what is the risk here? afraid that you cannot tweak a short and understandable summary so easy later-on (to reflect your personal wishes you cannot really explain here)? Is this culture of "preserving chaos" and slowing down any progress to the "speed of the slowest" a typical element of a national culture? At least I start understanding why Greece is in trouble apart from what one can read in the press... --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never wrote we cannot write a good summary of the article. I simply think your points do not begin to describe the contents of a good summary and are POV and one-sided. And refrain from nationality-based personal attacks and crass innuendo. They just demonstrate the background and nature of your POV and also discredit you. I ask you to stop these attacks and also retract the attacks you have made. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
So EconomicsEconomics you've just, among other things, casually repeated the usual racist accusations against Greece and Greeks in general and I'm supposed to simply agree and trust you rewrite the whole article and/or summarise the causes of and countermeasures-solutions to the Greek crisis? Like hell I will! Thanatos|talk|contributions 19:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok let's put it down plain and simple. The article is currently unreadable because of length (this is my professional opinion as a publishing academic). Both the lead and the article should be cut down by about 70% (ie leaving it to about 30% of current length) to make it just a very long article (at about 10000 words this is longer than the vast majority of scientific publishers accept for an article or book chapter, let alone an encyclopedia lemma). Where can you see the content wise POV in that.
I have seen no signs of deliberate POV pushing in this discussion, and I have explicitly stated above that I am willing to collaborate to avoid unintentional non neutral POV. The current battlefield attitude and unwillingness to cooperate the article is opposite to the spirit of Wikipedia. If you are not willing to collaborate, perhaps it is time to leave Wikipedia and start your own blog. Arnoutf (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think Thanatos shows a battleground mentality and you choose to disregard your comments or the ethnicity-based taunts of the other editor to whom I just replied? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually I was also referring to you. I do agree the recent remark of EconomicsEconomics are not very helpful either. Arnoutf (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
That still does not answer my question regarding your comments. Do you think your comments are civil, AGF, BATTLE compliant? As far as my comments provide a diff where I exhibit battleground mentality, otherwise retract your uncivil remarks about BATTLE and NOTBLOG. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Easy "Any attempt to simplify it is an attempt at pushing one's favourite POV"
Not helping though.
But still my earlier questions remains unanswered. Do we agree the article should be shortened. Possibly by splitting off sections into new articles giving more in depth background. Or do we think it is ok as is (ie easily readable for novice readers)? Arnoutf (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Why do you think that my reply "Any attempt to simplify it is an attempt at pushing one's favourite POV" shows a battleground mentality? This is a complete failure on your part of assuming AGF or even understanding what my comment actually means. Your AGF failure extends also to your uncivil warnings about NOTBLOG. But you still have not answered my question regarding your comments. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
To answer your question. No less than yours or anyone elses here.
I would, however, like to stop discussing editor behavior and get answer to my content/article relevant question whether we can come to an agreement that the article in its current form is too long and detailed to read for a reader with little expertise on the topic. Arnoutf (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
To answer your question. No less than yours or anyone elses here. This reply shows some sign of realisation on your part that you have violated a few policies. However it is disappointing to see you do not take responsibility for your crass and uncivil warnings to other editors. In any case, I would also like to stop analysing the behaviour of other editors as long as said behaviour does not involve personal attacks against me or crass and unjustified warnings. And yes, to answer your question I would not mind if we apply WP:SUMMARY to this article. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@EconomicsEconomics: As for your proposal for the article to feature a better summary of the implemented counter measures, I can see this section a year ago already was spun off into a subarticle, and that no summary of this subarticle have been ridden yet. This in my point of view settles the question for now, that the first point of the articles to-do list should be to write a summary of the implemented counter measures first in this specific section. I oppose that the lead of the article should feature such details, as the lead section is only supposed to provide a first hand overview of what the topic is about, meaning it is good enough simply to let it cover what it already covers right now, that the bailout programme was conditional on implementation of "fiscal consolidation", "privatization", "structural reforms" and "debt restructuring". Danish Expert (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Arnoutf: I disagree with your opinion, that the article needs to be redesigned and drastically shortened, solely to suit the purpose of better informing novice readers about the topic. Wikipedia allow (and actually rate it to be "high quality") for articles to be comprehensive and cover all notable aspects of a topic. If we compare the article with the comparable European debt crisis article, our articles length is 315KB versus 277KB, and both articles feature an identical length for their lead. I think the lead length of our article is appropriate, when considering it summarizes a complicated crisis spanning six years in duration. Also think its appropriate (being requested by most readers), that the lead as it stands now, focus to explain a short summary of the causes, followed by a summary of how the crisis evolved, and ending with a short summary of its present state. Because of being a six-year long event with multiple phases, it is justified for the lead shortly to mention each of these phases, which it does as it stands right now. In this way, readers to begin with, are presented to a summary of all main phases of the crisis, which they then can read more about (following the same structure) below in the article. In this way it makes perfect sense, and should not be shortened further. Danish Expert (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

For readability it is recommended articles are not longers than 50,000 characters long (sse WP:Article size). This article is over 345,000 characters long. The lead is also longer than recommended in WP:LEAD. That other articles out there are too long to be readable is a problem (of those articles). It is not an excuse for this article. By the way I do agree that we should probably not split off sections without immediately writing a summary to replace them to avoid empty sections Arnoutf (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


As for the summary, is everyone prepared just to have the main causes, main measures, main main points of crisis evolvement in it? But leaving out lengthy detailing like one possible view that "three" distinct recessions hit Greece in a deliberately chosen time window (and not five recessions in another deliberately chosen view and time window) ?

(And a sentence in the summary that there are 100s conflicting views on guilt, moral, possible and better alternatives, wishes of involved parties and so on) (?)--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

and maybe that also WP:CONFLICT authors "allow" a summary (see next para)? --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I would not add a sentence in the lead saying "100s conflicting views exist", as such line can not be related to be an essential summary part of one of the main chapters in the article. I personally support a status qou of the current lead structure, which currently briefly mention "main causes" and briefly "main measures" (but only by stating headlines for the content of implemented bailout programmes - which can be understood to be the "main measures"), and then finally several paragraphs providing a chronological summary of "crisis evolvement".
My argument why its preferred for the lead, to keep featuring several paragraphs about "crisis evolvement", is because the crisis spanned 6 year in duration, during which the crisis can be said to have been in at least 5 different phases (i.e. the 4th paragraph represent the phase where Greece for 3 quarters in 2014 had regained access to private financial markets; with its crisis being millimeters away to end for good, if the Greek Government had just completed its programme as initially scheduled in Q4-2014 and not flushed its positive prospects away due to eruption of political caos). Casual readers having a first time look into this crisis topic, benefit from shortly getting presented to an overview of each of these key phases by the lead (the chronological crisis evolvement), before continuing reading the following more detailed article content. So it kind of summarizes the crisis and what it was about, and within this context, it is very helpful with the line stating that Greece actually suffered from four distinct time-stamped recessions (so that readers initially get acquainted to how the pre-crisis and crisis situation was). In a couple of months, the 6th paragraph can be rewritten to a much shorter one, only presenting key features of the upcomming third bailout programme. Danish Expert (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I also agreed already (in my comments below) to the structure with the thee elements (main causes, main measures, crisis evolvement). Maybe there is still a way to shorten/aggregating the crisis evolvement a bit without leaving out any important steps, and enhance causes and measures a bit not to leave out important ones.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 09:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
We should add the root course for the Greek debt crisis "joining the Euro without sufficient financial convergence and competitiveness", shouldn't we?--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
As there seems to be no contradiction I take this as a 'yes' --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I think that there should be a separate article for "Causes of the Greek debt crisis". It should not be in the lead, which should summarise what the crisis was and is as it evolves. I think a good template is the World War II article, which has a five-paragraph lead and is approximately 250k in size. The causes of the war do not receive treatment in the lead, instead they are summarised in a separate section of the main article that serves as a gateway to the longer article "Causes of World War II". Speaking of causes, I think that anything that causes this article to exceed ~250,000k t should be a candidate for forking into a new article and summarising in a section of the main article. WP:Split guidelines say that "> 100,00kb should almost certainly be divided", and we are well past that point. Yes, this article should be comprehensive, but at a certain point that means that it must become a comprehensive summary of more detailed articles. I think the section on Effects, especialy the subsection "Social Effects" is rather skimpy and could be greatly expanded, but again, this might evolve into it becoming a separate article summarised here.--Jpbrenna (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably everybody agrees to keep it compact and use forks for long sub topics. But why do you propose to exclude and delete the topic "causes" in the lead? Do you think that the question of "how Greece as part of the modern western world and the EU could slid in such a deep, long, and devastating debt crisis" is of low interest and should therefore be deleted in the lead?

btw, the cause section in the WWII article seems of questionable quality as it doesn't even contain causes for a war (a fork is no reason that the main article should be low quality). The WWII cause section just describes the start of the war not one cause. So we might use other articles than WWII as best practice benchmarks how to describe causes or summarize causes in leads.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think causes should be omitted from the lead. It should begin in a new section below the lead. Not only World War II, but also WWI, Great Depression, and other weighty topics do this. Why? Because we have to assume that at least some readers will know absolutely nothing about the topics and will need an acquaintance with the barest description of what the topic is before moving on to more detailed discussion of its background, causes, effects etc. The background section for WWII does discuss reparations, rising irridentism and totalitarianism, and civil wars which are all agreed to causes of World War II or the precursor conflicts that evolved into World War II. I think it does a good job of summarising a lengthy article "Causes" article that readers can consult after reading the main article. But none of it is mentioned in its lead, nor in the leads of any of the other articles. The War of the Spanish Succession lists its cause in the lead, but of course it had a much simpler cause that is easily distilled into the title, to say nothing ot the lead. But the Seven Years War relies on its Background section to discuss causes, because they were much more complex. In its complexity, I think this topic is more like World War II than the War of the Spanish Succession, and should be treated as such. The distal causes of the initial Greek debt crisis are complex enough to warrant saving for a separate Background section. They are also debated much more, at present, as Thanatos has pointed out, which will make the section even more complex than the one for World War II. I think it will probably be agreed that the proximal causes were the Great Recession and Papandreou's post-election revelation of the state of the Greek government deficit, but we should state that as quickly as possible and move on to summarising other key points like its effects in the lead.Jpbrenna (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
You want to avoid a lengthy "detailed" mentioning of causes in the lead - I couldn't agree more.
Concerning "causes" you constantly make reference to the WWII article - it has one of the worst WP causes section as I described above. I hope we can agree that that war articles are not needed anyway here.
I hope you don't want to make yourself part of the same interest group that the WP account Thanatos is part of, and I don't even mean Thanatos' continuous rants. He is obviously very angry that Greece didn't get earlier and more debt forgiveness from its lenders. He makes himself a biased party in the debt crisis ("You fucking racist idiot, the very fact that it was only ~100bn and that had been for so long delayed").
Bet even Thanatos and I agree that the root cause for the Greek debt crisis was Greece's entry in the monetary union when Greece was not ready for it, making all of Greeks debt "external" non-drachma debt. Is this too much information for a reader of the lead? Then you may as well delete the "inclusionist" button from your page as your are fighting to keep information out with really stretched arguments.
If you want to see Papandreou's post-election revelation also as an important cause for the debt crisis, ok. But Greece was anyway not able to repay due debt with its bursting high external debt volume these times, so Papandreou's statement only revealed what was not possible to hide anyway. Even if "he" hadn't revealed it, it would have been revealed automatically or by somebody else.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Graphs for interest rates

Hello all! I modified previous graphs, as they were obsolete and were lacking crucial information. The two new graphs refer to the same content as he previous publication, although the most recent graph has an extended time period, as well as clearer differentiation between the countries. All the data was obtained from public sources available at European Central Bank official website. My intentions are to improve the article and add valuable information from the neutral point of view. Please send a message or continue the discussion prior to attempting to revert my edit or remove the images. Thank you! --Verbal.noun (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greek_government-debt_crisis/Archive_7&oldid=735352141"